Category talk:English irregular plurals

do we want one list containing all irregular plurals + subcategories by ending or do we want subcategories by ending only?

What is the merit of having subcategories by ending?

If we want to have these subcategories by ending, would it be more sensible to categorise according to how the ending was formed rather than what it looks like? (e.g. one category for words of Greek origin with on->a (such as automaton, phenomenon) and one for words of Latin origin with um->a (such as datum, serum))

The categories should have a description (and essentially already have one) of the formation rules of the plurals contained therein (i.e. why the "-es" category includes faxes and hatches but not faces and douches). If we know that all plurals ending in "-a" are irregular, why bother having the word "irregular" in the cat name? bd2412T 16:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Similarly for "-ies". There is no need to have inclusion rules at the beginning of each irregular plurals category. A simple reference to the rules on Category:English nouns with irregular plurals suffices. Agreed? Ncik 17:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)